Re: [PATCH] checkout: add --progress option

From: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2015, 18:14 UTC
Message-ID: <CAOc6etapqKNAXxNycAx9g9VTJXnnCxuXj5eU7giKvZUy5s8X3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOc6eta7_0RfBUngtMg5ZAEUvjuPVgZ20ESgnbJK=--h53k+Tw@mail.gmail.com>

I just noticed something interesting.

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I do find what Peff showed us a lot easier to follow.
>>
>>         if (opts.show_progress < 0) {
>>                 if (opts.quiet)
>>                         opts.show_progress = 0;
>>                 else
>>                         opts.show_progress = isatty(2);
>>         }
>>
>
> Ok.... let me rewrite it that way. Other than that, the other things are ok?

In Peff's implementation I think he uses -1 as --no-progress, 1 as --progress and 0 as undefined, right?

In my implementation I'm using -1 as undefined and 0 as --no-progress. What would be the standard approach? From what I can see on parse_options's behavior, if you select --no-progress, the variable ends up with a 0, which makes me think I'm using the right approach.

End result with my assumptions would be:

        if (opts.show_progress) {
                /* user selected --progress or didn't specify */
                if (opts.quiet) {
                        opts.show_progress = 0;
                } else if (opts.show_progress < 0) {
                        opts.show_progress = isatty(2);
                }
        }